48 comments:

Trump understands Wrestlemania. He assumes his audience gets the act, and most of them do. That's why Trump's rallies are so fun-spirited. But some folks don't get the show. Cruz people, like my 91-year-old mother, are highly offended by "Little Marco" and "Lyin' Ted."

It amazes how the media don't seem to get it, though. You'd think communications types would understand schtick. They don't, especially the lefties of the media. Progressivism does that to you as does religion in general. It takes away your ability to see that life is a comedy when it isn't being a tragedy.

Blogger M Jordan said...Trump understands Wrestlemania. He assumes his audience gets the act, and most of them do. That's why Trump's rallies are so fun-spirited. But some folks don't get the show. Cruz people, like my 91-year-old mother, are highly offended by "Little Marco" and "Lyin' Ted."

Hey, I'm Cruz people, and I get it.

And the media gets it too. Just like they've always gotten the true meaning of anything uttered by a Republican. But, they are Democrats with bylines. They don't "Get it" on purpose. Not too long ago (maybe a year?) there was a Republican politician in Wisconsin, Senator I think, he said something that caused a ruckus. I can't remember what it was, but it got twisted into something racial I think. Ann featured it hear on her blog. And she basically said, she understood what was meant, but as a politician, you have to be careful what you say because people will twist it.

Trump has thrown all of that into the trash. And I'm thankful for that, even though it's probably only temporary.

I can't count how many times I politician has said something that was perfectly mundane but was spun up by the media and the story became, "Sure he didn't say anything wrong, but some people heard it wrong and therefore, he shouldn't have said it."

I saw an interview the other day with Larry King about his experience interviewing Donald Trump over the years. The question was, "How is Trump after the interview is over? Is he different?" The answer was, "No." I've heard Ivanka asked more or less the same question and she gave the same response. Trump is honest about what he thinks whether he's talking to one person or twenty thousand people. For me that's a relief. He's not running to amass political power for special interests.

The thing about Trump being presidential is actually not a big concern for me because after the election is over the President makes very few speeches and public addresses, and Trump will not be an exception. His public speeches will be written by speechwriters and gone over by advisors.

Communications are best made loud. It wakes up the older folks and sounds like authority to the younger folks. And then the message needs to be repeated with feeling until the teachable moments happen. Blount sounding talk never hurts salted classic with Anglo Saxon emotional slang words.

Alive and well people like Wagner and Tchaikovsky the louder the better. Some say they prefer Handel and Mendelssohn sensitivity but still they react to Wagner and Tchaikovsky.

General Patton's Speech given to the green Troops all over England for months leading up to D-Day still has the effect it was designed to have. That effect is Leadership 101.

Traditionalguy, give me Brahms any day. Trump's speeches do not have display any sort of leadership to me. Rabble rousing? Yep. Inspiring? Nope. And I say that as a person who is NOT a Cruz fan. not real wild about Kasich, but if I had to choose between the three, I'd reluctantly choose him over the other two. Still think everyone should be forced to watch Face in the Crowd with Andy Griffith before voting this year.

I don't like Trump, but he has some natural political ability (or he is very lucky). At this point, he has an opening to become a "new Trump" and "more presidential" to overcome about a 10 point deficit to a disliked democratic candidate. I also think "crooked Hillary" has some potential. Trump can say, endlessly, "Bernie called her corrupt, I call her crooked."

So when trump bites the dust in November, Are we to assume that Hillary is playing 14 dimensional chess to Trumps' 12 dimensional chess or is it simply a matter that Trump is just a dick thatI can't get elected.

Blogger steve uhr said...I guess being presidential has nothing to do with character. You can turn it on and off at will.

You're only just now figuring this out?

We elected Obama and Clinton. Neither have character. One of the things I like about Trump is, it's a big middle finger to Democrats. Going to lower the bar for who can be president? Fine. Here's Trump.

"I have to keep you people going. Otherwise you're going to fall asleep on me, right?... When I'm out here talking to you people, I've got to be different."

Is this a problem? Trump has seemed since the start of this campaign to be a relatively perceptive man, and one who's quite straightforward about it.

I suspect that vast swathes of Americans who have watched American political antics for decades have become accustomed to, and maybe even numbed by, the stultifying lack of imagination and the routine deception about absolutely everything large and small which characterizes elections, candidates, reporters and pundits in this country. Trump is a bit different. Some see him as a refreshing breath of fresh air; others are merely puzzled, and having trouble believing that he's for real.

Obama had his gig, Trump has his. Obama had the first black guy thing, the f Bush thing, the guy who could take on Bill O'Relly and was the rational and forthright man. You gotta respect that.

Trump has the white guys who don't work for the government (without the government benefits makes them wonder what the hell there are going to do when they get old). Most of them white guys don't work for the government because they found their college professors boring and wimpy. It pretty much comes down to resentment against those living off of the people's taxes and immigration.

So everything Trump has said up to this point is an act? Does that includes his stance on issues? That has been my fear about him from the get-go. All of his positions are diametrically opposed to his positions of a few years ago.

Is there anyone who thinks that next POTUS is not Queen Hillary? If so, give me your everything. She is next WH occupant. Her VP will be Latino/Black/Woman - Castro or Booker or Warren - that is, people like these. GOP will be two white men. In the age of diversity, GOP is TOAST.

The summa of Trump criticism always comes back to complaints about his superior skill set of communication tools being used to fool others, but the speaker of course who opposes strongly such a dangerous speaker of new concepts being allowed an audience.

Interestingly, that repeats the motivations behind the Clarendon Code which Established Anglican supremacy in England and thus populated the 13 Colony's Reformed tradition.

So everything Trump has said up to this point is an act? Does that includes his stance on issues? That has been my fear about him from the get-go. All of his positions are diametrically opposed to his positions of a few years ago.

From the start of this reality TV show, Trump has been a Trans-Republican. He plays at a caricature of a Republican, and in today's world plenty of people go along with it, but he is in reality a Dem. Moreover, he has more than a few Clintonistic characteristics to him and his operation.

Wow, someone speaking to audiences running for office acts different than in private relaxing or making a deal.

Everyone has different personas for different situations in their lives. Everyone. This is nothing new nor is it nefarious. You don't act, dress or even speak the same way when you work in an office setting as you would when you are out at night with friends at a bar or when visiting your grandmother.

You have your work face. Your face you put on when hanging out. Your family reunion face. Your face you have when you are intimate with the one you love. Supposedly, that is your real inner face. But nevertheless people always change with the circumstances.

Trump has his campaign persona and it is changing as the campaign changes too. People understand this. He certainly doesn't act the same way when making "deals" with people.

Politicians ALL project an image of what they think will appeal to the voters. This is not surprising or new.

I used to think being president was really hard, maybe even the hardest job in the world. But I realize now it is only as hard as you make it. Who is there to make sure you put in your hours and do your work? You are the last word--- in the country. It's only a hard job to do well.

Obama seems to have all the time in the world to fundraise, keep up to date on sports, popular television, popular music, golfing, and even twitter spats and talk radio criticisms. My husband and in-laws work too hard to keep up with all of that. Obama seems to take the job at his leisure.

Just a few months ago the #neverTrumpers were worried that Trump might start a third party. Now they’re talking about doing that very same thing themselves! Hypocrisy, thy name is Neocon! Or Bill Kristol.

Noted: When Hillary changes positions on issues the MSM calls it “pivoting.” When Trump does it it’s called “Etch-A-Sketch.” It worked on Romney, so why not?

Trump will act presidential when acting presidential is appropriate. Acting presidential at rallies is inappropriate. At rallies Trump needs to be combative and hard-hitting. “Acting presidential” is one of the reasons Romney lost. The Democrats, the MSM and all their allies know just how to torpedo a presidential-acting GOP candidate. They learned their craft with McCain, honed it to a fine edge with Romney and the same would happen to Kasich, Cruz, or any other conventional GOP candidate.

Aren’t the calls for Trump to “act presidential” just another call for “civility?” And don’t we all know that calls for “civility” are really just attempts to censor inconvenient opinions or opposing viewpoints? Haven’t we gotten at least THAT far in our awareness?

No, grackle. Nobody wonders at Qwinn's meaning. Cruz is very conservative. Donald Trump is an America-loving Democrat. That makes him rare these days, in circles of power. But he is not conservative.

Glad the commentor cleared that up for us. But allow me, readers, to correct the commentor. Trump is a reform-minded, right of center moderate with libertarian leanings in foreign policy. He is not a Democrat.

One of the problems that the rightwing anti-Trumpers have with Trump is that Trump refuses to genuflect before the social conservative wing of the GOP. They continue to attempt to enforce their silly social-issue purity standards. Many of them stayed home when Romney ran and McCain wasn’t social-conservative enough for them either. Their fantasy: That the voters would eagerly elect a “true” conservative in a presidential election if only a “true” conservative were able to be nominated.

A list of Trump’s primary victories over Cruz should destroy this fantasy but illusions are difficult to overcome when ideology gets involved. The fatal flaw: If they cannot even win over their own party’s primary voters how are they going to win against Hillary?

One thing that Cruz and Kasich have in common: They are both behind Trump in votes and delegates. Another thing: Both are mathematically eliminated from obtaining 1237 delegates on a first ballot.

Contrary to the #neverTrumpers I am not a #neverCruz/Kasich. I would have no problem voting for either should he end up as the GOP nominee. The main objection I have for both is I believe they would stand no chance in the general election due to the stranglehold the MSM has on the political narrative. They would both be carved up by the MSM in the presidential contest against Hillary – Cruz sliced the easier because his main constituency is limited to the social conservatives. Trump is the only candidate in modern times that has demonstrated the ability to break the MSM’s stranglehold.

We see now that Kasich and Cruz are colluding. Kasich will drop out of Indiana and leave Cruz alone to face down Trump.

On paper it looks like a good plan but if I’m a staunch Kasich supporter I might be a bit confused at this point. First my man says Cruz should drop out - now he says I should cast my vote for Cruz … Well, I guess they had to do something.

I’m struck by the contrast between the Democrat pivot to the Left and the GOP shift toward the middle with Trump. If Trump wins the nomination I believe it would usher in a revitalization of the currently hidebound GOP. Cruz, the social conservative White Hope, cannot even win a majority of the so-called “evangelicals.” Although the social conservatives and the evangelicals overlap in many voting situations the two groups appear to differ when it comes to Trump. Interesting article on Trump and the evangelicals here:

I cannot care less about so-called social conservative issues. All I want is less government. I see no evidence that Trump would work to decrease the intrusion of government into every part of American life.

But you go on with your projections and one of us will be disappointed at the results. And I will realistically wrestle as much of my existence from Leviathan as possible.

Boy, oh boy, are you confused. I cannot care less about so-called social conservative issues. All I want is less government. I see no evidence that Trump would work to decrease the intrusion of government into every part of American life.

I congratulate the commentor for the commentor’s commonsense attitude in regards to social conservative issues and appreciate the commentor’s commendable effort to relieve me of my confusion. However, I was making general reference to a couple of different interesting rightwing groups, not to individual commentors.

But since the commentor raises the point perhaps it would be helpful if the commentor could give us some links to some of the many transgressions by Trump on governmental intrusion “into every part of American life” in the past nine months since Trump has become a candidate. There must be some out there and I believe it only fair that the readers be allowed to read them and be able to judge Trump accordingly.

Gee, it took the commentor only 33 minutes to respond to my previous comment at 8:29 AM. It looks like my latest comment will be more problematic for the commentor. This type of research can be time-consuming. But we are patient, are we not, readers? We are quite willing to wait and I urge the commentor to take the time to properly relieve us of our deplorable confusion.

Jobs require attention. I like condescension more than most so I am not offended by your jackassery.

Name-calling and insults. Tsk, tsk. I thought we were in a debate. Silly me.

Trump has made no mention of his plan to reduce the impact of the federal government on our lives.

I see.

I would prefer a candidate who makes mention of the most important issue facing America. That man is Cruz.

When you can’t find quotes you necessarily have to go with no-quotes. To the commentor Big Gov is the “most important issue.” I see it as an issue, too – but not the most important issue.

I believe the most important issue is the safety of the American people. The commentor’s priorities evidently reside elsewhere. It’s considered by many to be the first priority of any POTUS. To that issue I point the readers to Trump’s positions on border security, a pause in Islamic refugee acceptance and Islamic immigration in general, Trump’s proposed build-up of the US military and Trump’s strong stance against gun control. These positions are publicly displayed at Trump’s website:

Big Government makes us less safe. Big Government will make it impossible to implement Trump's plans. Big Government will make us poorer.

I just do not believe that Big Government has much to do with the success or failure of Trump’s plans. Even with the drain on the nation’s economy that Big Gov represents long-term, I believe a Trump presidency would give the economy a shot in the arm.

Big Government insures we will lose overseas conflicts too. The State Department, CIA and other agencies will see to that.

My take on American security has more to do with a strong military with a willingness to use it when appropriate while retaining a healthy desire to avoid overseas conflicts, a proactive foreign policy instead of a reactive one, a secure border, promoting the 2nd Amendment and some good old-fashioned capitalism.

I simply do not believe the State Department can do much against a planned action of a really competent General, say, like David Petraeus. Was State against the surge? At any rate, the success of the surge serves to prove that the State Department allowed at least one “overseas conflict” to win. Frankly, I don’t believe State had much choice in the matter.

I’m at a loss as to the logic or meaning behind the “CIA and other agencies” reference(there’s that vagueness again).

You fail to see what is plain. I cannot think this through for you.

I think I “see” the commentor’s point – at least the parts that are not too ambiguous. But I disagree and give my reasons why.